One of the many troubling aspects of the killing of Trayvon Martin and the trial of George Zimmerman was how quickly the popular debate that emerged after the deadly encounter descended into the dark, partisan corners of American life. The many “sides” which materialized to defend the gun-toting neighborhood watch volunteer and the memory of a young man taken senselessly from his family were able to review the same facts and witness accounts--such as they were--and come to startlingly different conclusions about what transpired that rainy night in Sanford, Florida.
The case stirred the thoroughly American toxic stew of race, gun rights, white paranoia, the fairness of the American criminal justice system, even the nuances of street demeanor and style. Soon after Zimmerman’s defense began it was the memory of Trayvon Martin that seemed to be on trial, not the man eager to stamp out crime in his neighborhood who neglected to see Trayvon Martin as his neighbor too. Trayvon was instantly suspect because of his youth and appearance. It is the kind of street profiling that happens all the time in “stop and frisk” America, and this time it was a presupposition that proved deadly.
Whatever one thinks of the jury verdict, the case highlights some areas where greater public scrutiny and legislative intervention seem warranted. Because of a injudiciously rapid expansion of right-to-carry policies, too many are carrying lethal force wherever they go with as little reserve as throwing a cellphone into a backpack. That carelessness combined with Florida’s stand your ground laws create the perfect foundation for more such pointlessly fatal encounters. Had Zimmerman been unarmed, Trayvon Martin would undoubtedly have made it home safely that night with his Skittles and iced tea. And if “stand your ground” were not legally endorsed as a reasonable defense for the use of lethal force, then the jury which acquitted George Zimmerman would have had to do more than accept the meagre explanation of the last man left standing that night in Sanford.
Update/Correx: I appear to have been guilty of contributing to a media conflation of the problems associated with "stand your ground" laws with George Zimmerman's defense strategy. Zimmerman's attorneys never invoked "stand your ground," although it was mentioned by the prosecution which was trying to demonstrate inconsistencies in Zimmerman's statements to investigators (whether or not he was familiar with this doctrine). The defense relied on standard self-defense arguments since, according to Zimmerman's account of the incident, he was not in a position to retreat from Martin. I think the overarching danger of loose gun laws and stand your ground policies still pertains, however.
See The American Prospect's Scott Lemieux on this:
[I]t is important not to lose sight of something else: the inadequacy of the law in most states to deal with America's gun culture. Carrying a deadly weapon in public should carry unique responsibilities. In most cases someone with a gun should not be able to escape culpability if he initiates a conflict with someone unarmed and the other party ends up getting shot and killed. Under the current law in many states, people threatened by armed people have few good options, because fighting back might create a license to kill. As the New Yorker's Amy Davidson puts it, "I still don't understand what Trayvon was supposed to do." Unless the law is changed to deal with the large number of people carrying concealed guns, there will be more tragic and unnecessary deaths of innocent people like Trayvon Martin for which nobody is legally culpable. And to make claims of self-defense easier to bring, as Florida and more than 20 other states have done, is moving in precisely the wrong direction.
The whole discussion of Trayvon Martin's height and weight is distasteful to me. This only encourages the "black teen menace" virus that is part of the culural pathology on display in this tragedy. But if it is to come up at all, let's use actual facts and not "facts" distilled from e-mail chain letters or one of those screeching partisan websites.
According to the coroner's report, the deceased weighed 158 pounds and was 71 inches tall; that's 5'11. The picture of Trayvon used by the media that many bloggers insisted was taken when he was 12 was actually taken 11 months prior to his death when he was 16. That picture seemed to depict a sweet, wide-eyed youth instead of a scary, hoodie-wearing thug wannabe that would make Zimmerman's homicide more palatable to some, but perhaps it reflected the young man that Trayvon Martin actually was or was growing up to be. It's terrible that he is not around to defend himself against all the insinuations of hoodlumism that have circulated since his killing, during the trial and now during its unquiet aftermath.
I wrote about 300 words on this complicated matter, so, yeah, the above is "grotesquely simple." But if you want to pick it apart a little to tease out greater complexity, let's start with your objection to my use of "white paranoia" as a nod to the general suspicion of black teens on the street. You're unhappy with it, but just a few lines later note as if it is uncontroversial the "daily onsaught of crime" which apparently "surrounds" people. What people are we referring to? In New York, crime is at historic per capita lows and that's true around the country. Crime has been going down, down, down, even in troubled economic times. But you would never know that from the many who apparently feel that the only way to go out in public these days is carrying a concealed weapon. Yes, there are urban neighborhoods where street crime is a huge problem, but the way some middle-class, caucasions carry on, you would think it was Mad Max out there. It ain't. The unfounded fear of crime out of all context to the demographic reality of crime is partly what I am thinking of as "white paranoia."
Yes, I see that, was trying to amplify my meaning on "white paranoia." Please do not get a gun permit!
In my experiences in heavy crime neighbohoods, most street crime was associated with drug trade and gangs protecting same. The ease with which these guys could get their hands on guns (straw man purchases in collar counties around Chicago) made it all the more violent and lethal to us residents.
What is this even supposed to mean? "Race-baiters" are trying to use Zimmerman case to distract the rest of America from black on black crime? To what possible end? I keep seeing this argument in play as if the public could not hold two complex problems, street profiling and hypervigilance of minority young people and black on black vioence, in mind at the same time. It's just not true. There has been plenty of coverage of black on black crime as a major social problem.
And this was hardly a "garden variety" self-defense case.